PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.versusHARVINDER SINGH

A              PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
                                           V.

                                HARVINDER SINGH

                                JANUARY 19. 2006

B               [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]


          ELECTRICITY SUPPLY:

          Application for new electric large supply connection-Additional demand
C by Electricity Board from consumer as per a Circular--Circu/ar applicable
     w.ef a particular date-{.'onsumer had applied for the connection prior to the
    specified date-By clarificatory Circular, the previous Circular made applicable
    also to those whose connections had nut been released on the specified date-
     Propriety of the demand-Held: The Circular was applicable also to the
D    applicants making application prior to the specified date--Demand was
    justified.

          Respondent had applied for a new electric large supply connection
    on 10.3.992. He deposited the security amount. Appellant-Board made
    additional demand over and above the already deposited amount on the
E   basis of one time contract demand charges in excess of 60% of the
    connected load, from Large Supply consumers in view of Circular dated
    4.5.1995 and clarificatory Circular dated 6.2.1996. The represent~tion of
    the respondent against the demand was rejected by the authorities of the
    Board. Writ Petition thereagainst was also dismissed by High Court on
    the ground that the earlier Circular did not require the consumers who
F   had applied for new connection prior to 1.4.1995 to pay such charge. Hence
    the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: 1. The demand raised cannot be said to be without sanction
G of law. The Circular dated 4.5.1995 was also applicable to those applicants
    whose applications were made prior to 1.4.1995 and were pending. It
    cannot be conceived that those who had applied for extension would be
    required to pay demand, but not those who were fresh applicants.
                                                                (489-G-H(
H                                        486
       PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD 1·. HARVIN DER SIN GI I [PASA VAT. J]   487
      2. The clear intention of the appellant-Board as is culled out from a          A
combined reading of the two Circulars is that those applicants whose
applications were made prior to 1.4.1995 but to whom connections/
extensions had not been released before the issue of the Circular dated
4.5.1995 even though they ap,plied before 1.4.1995 were required to pay
the amount on the basis of one time contract demand charges in excess of             B
60% of the connected load. (489-E-F]

      ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2398 of2000.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1999 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2829 of 1999.
                                                                                     c
     H.M. Singh, Anil Hooda, Kaushal Yadav and Ms. Shabha Saifi for the
Appellants.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of              D
a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the
demand made by the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') for
a sum of Rs 2, 17.000/- was impermissible.

      The background facts in a nutshell are as under:-
                                                                                     E
       The respondent applied to the Board for a new electric L.S. (large
supply) connection on I 0.3.1992 for running an induction furance. He
desposited a sum of Rs. 2, 01,000/- as security on the same day and his
application was registered after all the formalities were completed. The Board
in terms of its Circular CC No. 41/95 dated 4.5.1995 decided to recover one          F
time charge from the Large Supply consumers demanding contract demand
higher than 60% of the connected load and to charge monthly minimum
charge on the connected load basis instead of Contract Demand basis. An
additional demand of Rs. 2, 17,000/- over and above the amount al read
deposited was made on 12.2.1999 on the basis that the respondent had not
depositer.l, the requisite amount in terms of the Circular dated 4.5.1995 and        G
clarificatory Circular dated 6.2.1996. The respondent made a representation
to the authorities saying that there was no liability for liquidating the demand.
But the authorities of the Board rejected the stand and held that the respondent
was liable to make the deposit. A writ application was filed before the Punjab
and Haryana High Court intera/ia raising the following question for                  H
    488                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2006] I S.C.R.

A adjudication of the High Court:
           (i)   "whether the representation made by petitioner can summarily
                 be rejected without affording opportunity of hearing?
           (ii) Whether the releasing of electricity connection will be taken on
                the date when all formalities were completed and lines were
B               installed upto and within the premises of the factory of the
                petitioner?
           '(iii) Whether the demand of the respondent is illegal when the
                  consumption charges are already been paid against the bills of
                  electricity?"
c
        The High Court was of the view that in the Circular dated 4.5.1995,
  there was no requirement. for the large scale consumers to make a deposit in
  terms of the said Circular. What was stated by the subsequent clarificatory
  Circular could not provide the Board the basis for making a demand in the
D manner done. The High Court held that in the earlier Circular the consumers
  who had applied for new consumer connection prior to 1.4.1995 were not
  required to pay one time demand charge. Since the Board decided to recover
  the charges from such consumers as well by issuing Circular No. CC 11/96
  dated 6.2.1996, it is only with effect from the date of the said Circular such
  class of consumers were required to ·pay one time contract demand charge.
E Accordingly, the demand notice dated 12.2.1999 was quashed.
          Learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the view of the
    High Court is clearly untenable. In the first Circular, it was clearly noted as
    follows:-

F           xxx xxx xxx

               "It has been decided by the Board to recover one tim~ charges
           from the Large Supply consumers demanding Contract Demand higher
           than 60% of the connected load and to charge monthly minimum
           charges on the connected load basis instead of on Contract Demand
G          basis as under."

            xxx xxx xxx

                "The Contract Demand shall be fixed between 40% and I00% of
            the connected load and the consumer shall have the option to declare
H           the same. The uhow dwr!{es shall be leviable only in case of new
        PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD"· HARVINDER SINGH (PASA YAT,J)    489

        applicants who apply/applied for release of load/demand for a new        A
        connection or for extension in load/demand w.e.f 1.4.1995. However,
        in case of existing consumers who have applied for extension in load/
        demand prior to 1.4.1995 and connections have not been released,
        the above charges shall be leviable on, the basis of the Contract
        Demand of the aggregated connected load or only on the G,ontract
        Demand for extended load, whichever is minimum. The above charges        B
        shall not be leviable in respect of HT Bulk Supply consumers as the
        Contract Demand is fixed minimum equal to I IKV transformers
        installed by them"

     By subsequent Circular dated 6.2.1996 which was issued to clarify the C
doubts entertained by some field officers, it was stated as follows:-

            "Recovery of one time Contract Demand Charges per Kva and as
        per rates mentioned in the C.C.No. 41/95 are to be affected from all
        new applicants who apply/applied for release of load/demand for a
        new connection or for extension in load/demand w.e.f. 1.4.1995. These    D
        charges are also to be recovered from all such consumers who's
        connections/extension have not been released before the issue of this
        circular i.e. 4.5.1995 even though they applied before 1.4.1995."

      None appears for the respondent inspite of service of notice.
                                                                                 E
      We find that the clear intention of the Board as is culled out from a
combind reading of the two Circulars is that those applicants who applications
were made prior to 1.4.1995 but to whom connections/extensions had not
been released before the issue of the Circular dated 4.5.1995 even·, though
they applied before 1.5.1995 were required to pay the amount on the basis
of one time contract demand charges of contract demand in excess of60%           F
of the connected load.

        Though some confusion appears because of the underlined portion of
the· first Circular dated 4.5.1995 that the charges were to be leviable only in
case of new applicant who applied/applied for release of load[<lemand w.e.f. G
1.4.1995, the subsequent lines make the position clear t.hat it was also
applicable to those applicants whose applications were made prior to 1.4.1995
and were pending. It cannot be conceived that those ·who had applied for
extension would be required to pay demand. but not whose who were fresh
applicants.
                                                                                 H
    490                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2006] I S.C.R.

A         Above being the position, the demand raised by demand dated 12.2.1999
    cannot be said to be without sanction of law. The Board may now proceed
    to recover the amount from the respondent who has not appeared inspite of
    service in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No. costs.

    K.K.T.                                                      Appeal allowed.
B




                                                                                    ,